{
  "question": "q24",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "TIE",
  "winner": "TIE",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 9119,
    "completion_tokens": 1408,
    "total_tokens": 10527,
    "cost": 0.09923,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9116,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09923,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05699,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04224
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, and treat the physical handgun and other lawful search paths as severable. Both therefore produce the same targeted motion and materially similar plea posture: the drug case may fail absent independent evidence, while the firearm and fencing matters may proceed on surviving evidence.\n\n[B] rejected: likely reduced firearm recommendation and dismissal of the drug count — record lacks charging, sentencing, independent-evidence, and plea-negotiation inputs.\n[B] rejected: case number and memorandum date — record lacks either.\n[B] rejected: physical gun characterized as unregistered and photograph characterized as proving intent or storage history — record establishes only the physical gun’s removed serial number and supplies no such evidentiary inference.\n[B] rejected: request to suppress “digital photographs” — internally inconsistent with the singular out-of-scope photograph identified in the argument and record.\n\nFailed candidates. Different ranking of the two winning issues — Different conduct failed; both answers pursue both suppression grounds.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s fuller severability inventory — Different conduct failed; Answer B likewise seeks only targeted suppression and preserves distinct lawful paths.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s overbroad plural reference to phone photographs — No safe neutralization failed to be proven; ordinary record verification confines the request to the identified image.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s more definite plea prediction — Record support failed because no charging, sentencing, or independent-evidence details were supplied.\nFailed candidates. Differences in treatment of the tube’s possible contents — Concrete consequence failed; the stipulated fact that no listed item fit produces suppression under both answers.\n\nHard stop. It cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}